NC Media Watch

CARB's Lead Scientist Unqualfied

Russ Steele

The lead scientist on California Air Resources Board study justifying costly new diesel rules got his degree from a UPS Store in New York for a $1,000. The UPS Store is the address listed for "Thornhill University" for its campus. But, no big deal CARB used his research anyway. It was not about the science, it was about the mission.

Hien Tran admitted Dec. 10 to CARB that he lied about having a Ph.D. in statistics from UC Davis. Instead, Tran said, his Ph.D. was from "Thornhill." Nevertheless, the air board still voted unanimously to adopt the rules based on his research Dec. 12 -- without acknowledging Tran's deception. Months and months later, Tran was demoted, but he still has a key role. Academic fraud, you see, is no big deal. The air board is on a mission. The normal concerns about making huge decisions based on tainted/flawed/untrustworthy/suspect research? The board couldn't be bothered.

Details here.

These costly rules have a negative impact on local businesses.  Which in turn has an impact on our local economy.  Your thoughts.

Some SB 375 fact checking

Russ Steele

Just in case you read this Yubanet Article Sierra Solutions Conference Topics Validated by Anti-Sprawl Bill. It leaves the incorrect impression, that CARB will be setting our Sierra regional greenhouse-gas emissions levels. Compliance with SB 375 is voluntary in rural counties, it only applies to Metropolitan Planning Organizations. (See map below)

SBC President, Steve Frisch has long been an advocate of pedestrian and bike friendly community planning and has championed many initiatives in the Truckee and Tahoe region. "Traffic and quality of life can't get better until people simply get out of their cars more. This is a basic premise behind our Sierra Nevada Local First program-keep our community unique, make it easy to shop local, and reduce environmental impacts-SB 375 encourages us to do that by incentivizing mixed use, infill, transit-oriented and town centered development." states Frisch.

SB 375 requires the California Air Resources Board to set regional targets by September 2010 for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Some good economic news (updated)

Russ Steele

Update:  This appears to be bogus information. It was based on a CBS Ch-13 Report. A follow up with the NCTC Staff and CARB indicates that they are not delaying implementation.

Update #2:  This from CARB:

SACRAMENTO - A few media outlets have recently run stories wrongly stating that the Air Resources Board has canceled the promulgation of a new proposed regulation aimed at cleaning up the 400,000 plus diesel trucks driving along California roadways. This is completely false. The Air Resources Board is currently set to vote on this extremely important proposed public health regulation at its December hearing in Sacramento. We are currently calling media outlets to determine where they received their false information, and also demanding corrections.

 

CARB has put the new diesel soot regulations on hold. These clean diesel regulations were to kick in in 2010, but now are being withdrawn. The multi-billion dollar cost was going to be too great. This will benefit the County, Cities and business that depend on diesel equipment, such a Robinson Timber. They will not have to retrofit the diesel equipment, or buy new equipment equipped with clean diesel engines.

Now if they would just get real on greenhouse gas regulations.  I guess there is still hope! 

And just how important is global warming to Californians (edited)

Russ Steele

A thousand potential California voters were asked this open ended question:  What are the main issues facing California.

Respondents said that the most pressing issues were:

•  The state budget and budget deficit (18 percent)
•  The economy in general (12 percent)
•  Gasoline prices (9 percent)
•  Education (9 percent)
•  Illegal immigrants (9 percent)
•  Unemployment (7 percent)
•  Housing and the mortgage crisis (5 percent)
•  High taxes (3 percent)
•  Government spending (3 percent)
•  Global warming or environment (2 percent)

The total does not add up to 100 percent due to the multiple other issues in the open ended question that did not score. Full Reuters article here.

Of course environmentalist attacked the credibility of this study by EMC Research for the AB32 Implementation Group. A group formed to track the implications of the legislation. According to the Reuters article:

"I don't see any merit in a survey that lacks credibility. The questions are so leading and misleading," said Wendy James, manager of the Global Warming Action Coalition based in Southern California.

But, as the Reuters article notes:

About 80 percent of the respondents said they had not heard about California's landmark legislation passed in 2006 and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that mandates a cut of global warming gases to 1990 levels by 2020.

So where is the groundswell of support for the implementation of AB32?  What it comes down to is that California are for environmental protection until it starts to cost them personally.  It is OK if the cost comes from somebody else's wallet, but not from their own pocket book. The scary thing is that eighty percent of Californian's are not paying attention and the Legislature and the Governor preparing some very costly surprises.

CARB coming to it's senses, what about Nevada City?

Russ Steele

Last night I was reading the latest issue of Wired Magazine, enticed by the article on Apples Evil Genus, when I discovered this article on the failure of ZAP to deliver on it's promise of electric cars for the masses. Hype Machine: Searching for ZAP's Fleet of No-Show Green Cars.

Then this morning, this report from the San Diego Union-Tribune indicating CARB is backing down on the zero emission electric vehicles. 

A staff report recommends that the board greatly reduce the required number of purely electric vehicles that automakers offer for sale and instead focus on more readily available and less expensive hybrids that would still cut pollution dramatically. It's a difference that would save the auto industry more than $2 billion through 2017.

Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said any new approach must reflect the limits of technology but at the same time steer automakers toward adding electric and fuel-cell-powered cars to their fleets.

It appears the ZAP cars imported from China have a few problems. The all-electric sedans did not come close to achieving the 40-mph speed and 40-mile range, and they stalled on steep hills and, worst of all only had a range of less than 20 miles.  Buyer of these electric car were an unhappy lot.    

Nevada City is buying electric cars in their quest to become green. It will be interesting to see how well these electric cars work in the steep hills of Nevada City, and if they have the advertised range. It is true the cars Nevada City is buy are not ZAP cars.  Could it be that CARB realized that electric cars are flat land vehicles, and many of us live in the hills, thus a smaller market for electric vehicles?  Or, could it be that 40 miles round trip range is not very practical in spread out California.

Job protection at the EPA and CARB

Russ Steele

On Wednesday, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson reset the allowable amount of ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, averaged over an eight-hour period, down from the current 84 ppb level that was set 11 years ago. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the national air standards every five years to ensure they are aligned with the latest science.

It has always amazed me that the cleaner we make the air, more we need to clean the air. As technology advances and scientist improve their ability to detect more parts per billion, the government thinks there is a need to lower the bar. If we can detect more, we need to reduce more. Every time the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a group of independent scientists meet they unanimously recommended more reductions in parts per billion. Not once have they recommended enough is enough, though the Administrator did not accept the full recommended reduction to 70 ppb this time.  Think about it. If we have reached the cleanest of all clean air will we still need the EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the California Air Resources Board to protect us?